Slashdot Mirror


Facebook Tracks the Status Updates and Messages You Don't Write Too

Jah-Wren Ryel writes "It turns out Facebook tracks the stuff that people type and then erase before hitting the post button. If you start writing a message, and then think better of it and decide not to post it, Facebook still adds it to the dossier they keep on you. From the article: 'Storing text as you type isn't uncommon on other websites. For example, if you use Gmail, your draft messages are automatically saved as you type them. Even if you close the browser without saving, you can usually find a (nearly) complete copy of the email you were typing in your Drafts folder. Facebook is using essentially the same technology here. The difference is that Google is saving your messages to help you. Facebook users don't expect their unposted thoughts to be collected, nor do they benefit from it.'"

38 of 163 comments (clear)

  1. Do they turn up in the downloads? by rvw · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Facebook has an option to download all your data. Do these texts turn up in these downloads as well? If not Facebook violates EU law.

    1. Re:Do they turn up in the downloads? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Don't find this in my data download.

    2. Re:Do they turn up in the downloads? by parkinglot777 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Update, Dec. 16, 2013: This article was updated to clarify that it is the browser code, not Facebook, that reads whatever you type.

      From TFA above, it said that the data first collected is not directly from Facebook but from the client's browser. In other words, Facebook is taking advantage of browser's insight (data).

      Other information we receive about you
      We also receive other types of information about you:
      * We receive data about you whenever you use or are running Facebook, such as when you look at another person's timeline, send or receive a message, search for a friend or a Page, click on, view or otherwise interact with things, use a Facebook mobile app, or make purchases through Facebook.
      * When you post things like photos or videos on Facebook, we may receive additional related data (or metadata), such as the time, date, and place you took the photo or video.
      * We receive data from or about the computer, mobile phone, or other devices you use to install Facebook apps or to access Facebook, including when multiple users log in from the same device. This may include network and communication information, such as your IP address or mobile phone number, and other information about things like your internet service, operating system, location, the type (including identifiers) of the device or browser you use, or the pages you visit. For example, we may get your GPS or other location information so we can tell you if any of your friends are nearby, or we could request device information to improve how our apps work on your device.
      * We receive data whenever you visit a game, application, or website that uses Facebook Platform or visit a site with a Facebook feature (such as a social plugin), sometimes through cookies. This may include the date and time you visit the site; the web address, or URL, you're on; technical information about the IP address, browser and the operating system you use; and, if you are logged in to Facebook, your User ID.
      * Sometimes we get data from our affiliates or our advertising partners, customers and other third parties that helps us (or them) deliver ads, understand online activity, and generally make Facebook better. For example, an advertiser may tell us information about you (like how you responded to an ad on Facebook or on another site) in order to measure the effectiveness of - and improve the quality of - ads.
      (source: https://www.facebook.com/full_data_use_policy)

      From the quote above (from their web site), it pretty much covers the 'download all your data' part in a vaguely wording way (bulletin #1). I guess someone has to sue Facebook to see if their policies actually cover the way they are doing now.

    3. Re:Do they turn up in the downloads? by jamiedolan · · Score: 2

      I just typed: livegoatseatchickenincanada, (into a status update box and into a comment box, but did not submit either one, I allowed it to sit for at least 30 seconds before leaving the page, more than enough time to send / save that text) a phrase which should be unique in my facebook archie. I've requested a copy of my archive be created / sent to me, I'll update this once I get a copy of my archive and search it for said text.

    4. Re:Do they turn up in the downloads? by arisvega · · Score: 3, Informative

      Facebook has an option to download all your data. Do these texts turn up in these downloads as well?

      You know they don't. Who you search for, your browsing habits and clicks, none of that turns up either.

      I do not know what purpose this 'download all your data' option serves, but it is certainly not there to give you the option to actually download all data facebook has on you: it is something ridiculous like your name, your birthday and a couple of other useless stuff. It does not even include the messages you have sent and received.

      --
      The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
    5. Re:Do they turn up in the downloads? by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Which makes sense because they were never stored.

      The source article that the linked article refers to says that Facebook records the fact that you entered text but never posted it. It does not record the text.

      But after three levels of "telephone", we have this thread.

    6. Re:Do they turn up in the downloads? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      not true. There was an article I read some time ago that showed an actual dump of a users activity used in an actual court trial. All of the partial stuff was there. It showed time stamps, every time the person hit backspace a bit and paused to think of which word, or even word ending, it was allllll there... in creepy ass detail.

    7. Re:Do they turn up in the downloads? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Or, just wait 'til your ads start showing results for "live goatse @ chicken.ca." Or, your friends and family get "jamiedolan likes `live goatse'" messages.

    8. Re:Do they turn up in the downloads? by bmimatt · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There's a Firefox plugin called 'Firebug'. It let's you see HTTP requests and responses. You could use that to see if what you type is sent immediately to FB.

    9. Re:Do they turn up in the downloads? by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 3, Funny

      There was an article I read some time ago

      With impeccable citations like that, you must be correct.

  2. Time to switch gears by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can see myself following a policy of "never type directly into a web browser, only copy and paste" in the near future. (And here's yet another reason to avoid "cloud" services and prefer local storage for anything personal.)

    1. Re:Time to switch gears by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Somehow I just can't picture vim phoning home like a proprietary software product.

    2. Re:Time to switch gears by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Somehow I just can't picture vim phoning home like a proprietary software product.

      Oh yeah? Well, emacs doesn't phone home better, and hasn't been doing it longer!

    3. Re:Time to switch gears by chromas · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, that's probably the one function emacs doesn't have.

    4. Re:Time to switch gears by egcagrac0 · · Score: 2

      Expect to see a plugin to helpfully upload your data to the cloud next Thursday.

    5. Re:Time to switch gears by mark-t · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's about on par with the suggestion that people can save a lot of money on gasoline by walking to work or cycling.

      My point being that the recommendation carries with it a set of disadvantages that heavily weigh against it when it comes to convenience. Much of the modern web today is not usable in any practical sense without javascript. If you can manage without it, that's nice... have a cookie. Just because you only visit websites that only present archaic interfaces doesn't mean everybody else does.

    6. Re:Time to switch gears by gman003 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Just for those who haven't memorized all the keybinds, "don't phone home" is c-m-X c-] by default.

    7. Re:Time to switch gears by Knuckles · · Score: 2

      Ever heard of NoScript? No, didn't think so.

      Please hand in your geek card on the way out, thanks!

      I'm using NoScript and it's a pain in the ass to do so.

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    8. Re:Time to switch gears by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The trouble with NoScript is that you end up having to make an (at least temporary) exception for almost every site you go to in order to use it at all.

      (Not to mention you also need exceptions for things like ajax.googleapis.com, which will surely integrate the functionality of googleanalytics.com if enough people start using anti-tracking technologies.)

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    9. Re:Time to switch gears by Travis+Mansbridge · · Score: 2

      If you can manage without it, that's nice... have a cookie.

      But.. I have cookies disabled :(

    10. Re:Time to switch gears by Tetch · · Score: 2

      Yes, Javascript is used all over the web, but I find that in almost every case it is unnecessary. I use Noscript, and have a pretty small whitelist, comprising mostly just my bank, some webmail sites, and one or two travel ticket booking sites that just don't work at all without it. I temporarily whitelist quite a variety of sites whose functionality is enhanced by scripting, but only on those occasions when I actually need that extra functionality - and taking that moment to click on the Noscript icon to do the temporary whitelist really doesn't slow me down.

      One example is the BBC news website, which runs at least twice as fast with scripting disabled - so I keep scripting blocked there except when I actually want to watch the video associated with a news story.

      Facebook stays disabled except on those rare occasions when I actually venture into that cess-pit; I believe (not sure) that this preserves me from most/all of those attempts by Facebook to follow me round the Web ("Like" ... "Share this" ...).

      And all those tracker sites of which I'm aware (doubleclick, google-analytics, 2o7, etc.) stay on my Noscript 'Untrusted' list.

      All the forums I use regularly work just fine without scripting, albeit sometimes with a slightly clunky look'n'feel. Often a site's 'search' facility just reports "No hits" unless scripting is enabled, but I'm blessed if I know why. So on the rare occasions when I need to search the forum, I temporarily whitelist. Easy, quick.
      [BTW: I've authored plenty of websites with a search engine integrated, and scripting is just not necessary (at least with Ht://Dig).]

      There is just no need for scripting in the vast majority of cases - genuinely Web 2.0 sites excepted. I reserve a special level of contempt for sites that implement links with Javascript.

      I accept that large efficiencies of content data transfer are obtained when AJAX is used nicely (page components updated in situ instead of a complete retransmission of the entire modified page). However, as a capable security-minded sysadmin I'm also aware of that fundamental security adage: "If you let a Bad Guy run His program on Your computer, it's not Your computer any more", ((c) Microsoft). Javascript functions are programs, so to allow all websites to run Javascript on my computer is an act of faith that :

      1. 1) The site administrator is not a Bad Guy
      2. 2) The site administrator is competent enough to author and/or run the webserver platform in a sufficiently secure manner that it never gets broken into by a Bad Guy and infected with a silent drive-by malware download.

      I'm afraid I just don't have that level of confidence in the abilities and motivations of all 5 Gajillion website sysadmins out there - and they not only have to be that competent, but also remain that competent 100% of the time. Heh.

      I run without scripting enabled, I enjoy a significantly faster and more ad-free web experience, I visit all kinds of murky parts of the Web :), and it's literally years since any PC of mine acquired an infection - unlike the army of friends and relatives whose PCs I'm regularly called to disinfect. Sadly, I accept that most Ordinary Folks just cannot get their heads round this stuff, and are completely fazed by the idea of having to "authorise" anything that ever happens on their computer. This, my friends, is Our Fault - we should not have engineered a WWW that functions so dangerously.

      Dialog Box (n):
      A small window containing an 'Ok' button, a 'Cancel' button, and some text that the user will ignore.

      You know that almost all drive-by downloads (apart from those that target buggy embedded document viewers) exploit a flaw in the DOM that requires Javascript to leverage, right ?

      --
      If you don't pray in my school, I won't think in your church.
    11. Re:Time to switch gears by mark-t · · Score: 2

      All the forums I use regularly work just fine without scripting, albeit sometimes with a slightly clunky look'n'feel.

      Just because you might be satisfied with a clunky user interface does not mean everybody else ought to be.

  3. Message saving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "The difference is that Google is saving your messages to help you."

    Well, we hope at least. When Google's robot army kicks down my door for looking up subversive material, will we still be saying this?

  4. Can we just call it... by Akratist · · Score: 5, Funny

    ..."Stasibook" and be done with it?

  5. Hmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Must kill Zuckerberg, Must kill Zuckerberg, Must kill ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H
    Must post cat video.

  6. I bet this is a part truth by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "The difference is that Google is saving your messages to help you."

    Well, we hope at least. When Google's robot army kicks down my door for looking up subversive material, will we still be saying this?

    Obviously drafts do help you ... but I wouldn't mind betting they also analyse the data and use it to predict your preferences in exactly the same way that Facebook does!

  7. Facebook doesn't store this stuff. by MarsLander · · Score: 5, Informative

    FTFA: "In their article, Das and Kramer claim to only send back information to Facebook that indicates whether you self-censored, not what you typed. The Facebook rep I spoke with agreed that the company isn’t collecting the text of self-censored posts."

    1. Re:Facebook doesn't store this stuff. by Sockatume · · Score: 5, Funny

      I guess Slashdot accidentally stored a hilariously inaccurate version of the summary.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    2. Re:Facebook doesn't store this stuff. by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 3, Funny

      Oh, phew! I was afraid

      I wanna fuck fuck fuck Taylor and Selena and ruck them and lick their swetty boddies.

      Post? Nah

      was still in there somewhere. I'd be so embarrassed over the misspellings.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  8. Re:Thought process by Chrisq · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Capturing a person's though process has a lot of value, sometimes more than the actual post written. Think of brand recognition, for a simple example. I like Pep... oops, I mean, Coke.

    And that is quite harmless. Its if writing a draft "dear mum and dad I'd like to telly you I'm gay. I know its against your religious beliefs", then deleting it will result in adverts for gay support groups, or anything else that could give someone an idea of what might not have been said that there is a problem.

  9. Time for an addon... by jonr · · Score: 2

    Time to create firefox/chrome add-on that types and then deletes all kinds of bullshit...

    1. Re:Time for an addon... by G-forze · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly my thoughts. This seems to be a good case for "poisoning the well", by using some simple Selenium script and a couple of e-books, for instance. Have the bot post random text snippets from the books to all kinds of people, events and pages, and then delete before sending. Make this data collection useless.

      --
      "There's someone in my head but it's not me." - Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon
  10. No kidding. by gstoddart · · Score: 2

    Facebook has become difficult to even type in the status box, because they're trying so hard to fill in suggestions and the like that the cursor jumps around. Half the time it jumbles up characters, likely because there's a crap-ton on javascript running with every keystroke.

    So everybody should periodically type "Mark Zuckerberg is a douchebag" and delete it. ;-)

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  11. Facebook? Still? by macbeth66 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Social Media was so 2013.

    Get with it, its all about meeting up with people in real-time. Awesome. You make a call, talk to a person and arrange to meet up somewhere. Say for dinner or a drink. Maybe even a hook-up.

  12. A better policy by TrollstonButterbeans · · Score: 3, Funny

    I don't save anything as drafts. I send them ALL!

    Even the stupid ones!

    Then when you sit down the NSA, they are in a poor bargaining position and say "Look, you are talking to a guy who sends stupid emails. Does my behavior suggest I have anything to hide?"

    /NSA agent starts sweating ...

    --
    Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
  13. What..why? by Overzeetop · · Score: 2

    If you're going to go to the effort of typing something as insightful as "Mark Zuckerberg is a douchebag" I say go ahead and post it. What's he going to do, de-friend you?

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  14. NEWSFLASH! by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 2

    Facebook and other social media highly deceptive and manipulative personal information brokers who have no moral code other purpose other than their own bottom elicit, compile, memorialize and sell excruciatingly detailed and ruinous personal information dossiers to the highest bidder including but not limited to all your future employers !

    Ha ha. Gotcha, sucker.

  15. Re:Facebook? Still? by anegg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm with you. The benefits of the evolution of communications into personal digital communications across the globe has been stolen by corporate interests and the government and used to create a mindfuck situation of unbelievable proportions. It seems like not long ago the US federal government was arguing about how new digital telephone switches so impacted their traditional ability to intercept calls that they need special legislative provisions that required interception capabilities to be built into all telephony switches or else they would lose their ability to investigate crime. Now we all wonder if we have any privacy at all, even in our own homes (how do you know your cell phone hasn't been programmed to perform electronic eavesdropping of your every conversation?), never mind in our on-line e-mails, and now possibly even in our thoughts about blog postings. Its enough to make one paranoid!